[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

Her setting up a private email server outside of the State department network and proceeding to use it to send sensitive, state department related emails.

Well precedent has been set in this regard and nothing happened to those who originally did it, with much more egregious outcomes. Why is it different for this one person rather than others?

We can argue back and forth how bad it is, and the level of illegality. But regardless of where you stand on those two spectrums, one should agree that it's not a smart decision.

A smart decision? That is very subjective. Against the intent of oversight and open government mandates? Then yes, we can agree there.

Originally Posted by nik-

For the record, when this first came out, I thought it was stupid too. I also figured it was just some partisan Benghazi type hackery. As time goes by though, and more info comes out, the situation just looks worse and worse. Some seriously dumb decision making, and questions as to why she did it I feel are pretty legit. Is it to maintain a copy of all her communication? To keep it from oversight? Or is it just because she's a technical moron and didn't realize how poor a decision it was, and also didn't have anyone on her staff to tell her how poor a decision it was?

I'm curious what exactly you know about securing systems and the various mechanisms that account for oversight of technical systems? Can you actually articulate the difference between a secure and a non-secure system? Can you explain what the requirements are for handling data with specific security labels and how they are to be secured and communicated? So far I haven't seen anyone speak to specifics in this regard.

You're the head of foreign policy for the most powerful country in the world. You don't communicate via an email server sitting in your house. An email server that you hire some random IT company to manage and backup.

See here's where you are talking crazy. You have no idea what the security posture of this system was. This isn't some suburbanite living in a McMansion. This is someone with round the clock Secret Service protection who lives in protected bubble. Her residence probably has better security than a lot of local or state government facilities. You also have no idea what the security configuration of the server was, nor why it was considered insecure. This particular term (insecure) can range from a number things - minor to major - but have different meanings. For example, the server may have had a common port left open at configuration, say 23, which is a security risk. That system would then be considered insecure. The system could have been plugged into a UPS that was faulty, making it insecure. The details of what made this system insecure, or the email itself insecure (which is another technical discussion where labels come into play), are important in understanding whether there was wrong doing and where the fault resides.

Also, on who was administering those systems, there are plenty of IT firms that have the clearance to work for the government. It is highly unlikely that anyone working with government is not going to use a highly regarded and well known Washington based firm for administering their systems. Also, there are many cloud based service providers that now have the blessing from the federal government for transmission and storage of labeled data. This is the crux of this issue. What was the label of the data at the time of transmission and storage and who had access to it.

In terms of things that make Clinton a poor choice for president, I would readily admit this is pretty damn far down the list. However, it's not something that should just be dismissed as nothing. It was either just really really dumb, or there was malicious/secretive intent.

There are lots of things that make Clinton a bad choice for President, and this may be another one. Until more details come out, or a charge is leveled, this is just more obfuscation from the noise machine.